Issues and Strategies for Outer Continental Shelf Claims

Rothwell, Donald R.

doi:10.1163/092735208x295837

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Rothwell (2008), he mentioned that International Journal of Marine and Coastal law stipulates that the UN Commission on demarcation needs get the relevant papers about all contracting countries' out continental shelf by 13 May in 2009. In this circumstance, there is legal support for countries to protect its territorial waters sovereignty, marine rights and interests.…”

Section: ▪ the Dispute Between Russia And Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Strategic View: South China Sea conflict based on the view of nationals from different countries

Chang

2021

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: ▪ the Dispute Between Russia And Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Strategic View: South China Sea conflict based on the view of nationals from different countries

Chang

2021

IJEBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Full submissions were acceptable with the understanding that rights were protected through the note verbale requests or the natural invocation of Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I of the CLCS Rules. Partial submissions gained legitimacy through decisions of the states parties and through state practice (Rothwell 2008). The lack of assessment of Antarctic data prevented misinterpretation.…”

Section: Claimant State Submissions and Antarctic Robustnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process

Weber

2012

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processes undertaken by Arctic states and Antarctic claimant states to submit data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) demonstrates the robustness of polar governance. The robustness of a governing system reflects its capacity to deal with emerging issues. For the purposes of this article, robustness comprises the effective protection of rights in the absence of prejudice and participant confidence. In the Arctic, unilateral assertion of continental shelf entitlement can proceed due to the nature of the CLCS process and recognition of sovereignty. Combined with the voluntary nature of Arctic governance, the process does not hamper cooperation in scientific research, boundary delimitation or engagement in initiatives such as the Arctic Council. In the Antarctic, a coordinated approach to continental shelf delimitation protected claimant states’ entitlement to a continental shelf and the right of other states not to recognise sovereignty. States demonstrated commitment to the Antarctic Treaty and acted according to accepted norms. Though different in structure, each polar governing system has its own characteristics of robustness. State authority drives participant confidence and regional cooperation in the Arctic. In the Antarctic, norms of behaviour foster system legitimacy and resilience is reinforced by the consequences of abandoning the system. With continued acceptance of the individual governing-system dynamics, emerging issues can be accommodated in both polar regions.

show abstract

“…The communications are clear in so far as the continental shelf appurtenant to Antarctica is concerned, but by contrast there has been no mention made of the continental shelf extending into the ATA from HIMI, Macquarie Island or the South Sandwich Islands. Although the unique and complex legal situation pertaining throughout the ATA is notorious, and would be known to members of the CLCS (Rothwell 2008: 190), in dealing with the Australian submission it was not open to the CLCS on its own motion to determine the existence of a ‘land or maritime dispute’. While other states may have some influence on the CLCS process (see Oude Elferink 2009), the CLCS is essentially a technical body tasked with responding to submissions made to it in their terms even if they are silent on potential matters of controversy.…”

Section: Sub-antarctic Islands and The Antarctic Treaty Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic Islands: implications for Antarctic governance

Hemmings

Stephens

2010

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the legal and policy issues surrounding the establishment of continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from sub-Antarctic islands. Under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) a coastal state may establish a continental shelf that extends seawards beyond 200 nm where the continental shelf continues, normally to a total distance of no more than 350 nm. To establish such an extended continental shelf (ECS) a coastal state must file a submission of delineation data with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a technical body established by UNCLOS.The rights of coastal states present particular difficulties in the Antarctic Treaty area (ATA), due to the general non-recognition of the seven territorial claims and the provisions of article IV of the Antarctic Treaty. Accordingly, Antarctic claimant states are generally adopting a restrained approach to the issue of ECS as appertaining to claimed territories in Antarctica in their submissions to the CLCS. These states appear to recognise that they cannot secure the normal prerogatives of a coastal state from territorial sea baselines within the ATA, at least for the duration of the present Antarctic Treaty system (ATS). A different approach is being taken with respect of sub-Antarctic islands lying north of the ATA. Sovereignty over sub-Antarctic territory north of the ATA is, with the exception of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, not contested. Accordingly, rights in relation to any continental shelf attaching to sub-Antarctic islands may be realised, apparently without challenging the Antarctic modus vivendi.However, the ECS of several sub-Antarctic islands penetrate the ATA. In 2008, the CLCS largely endorsed the 2004 Australian submission that included data on ECS from Australia's sub-Antarctic islands of Macquarie Island and the Heard and McDonald group. The ECS from both groups penetrates south of 60°S into the ATA, in the case of Heard and McDonald covering a huge area. Although the wider dispute regarding sovereignty between the United Kingdom and Argentina adds complexity to the case, the South Sandwich Islands are sufficiently close to the ATA that their continental shelf also penetrates the area. In the event that the CLCS were ever able to make a recommendation on a submission of data relating to the South Sandwich Islands (something that could only occur with the consent of Argentina and the United Kingdom) the result would be a situation similar to that pertaining to the Australian sub-Antarctic islands.The consequence of these developments is that rights to seabed areas within the ATA have been assigned to individual states. On the face of it, this appears to be in conflict with the norm of collective responsibility that was established by the Antarctic Treaty 50 years ago precisely to constrain sovereignty issues in the region. What is suggested by this practice is a difference in the attitude of Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) to rights generated from territory within the ATA and rights generated from external territory. Nonetheless, there may be significant implications flowing from the latter for resource issues within the ATA. Minerals exploitation on sub-Antarctic extended continental shelf within the ATA is precluded in the near-term because of cost, the formal prohibition under article 7 of the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the fact that all sub-Antarctic coastal states are ATCPs. However the situation in regard to other resource activities is less clear. Bioprospecting could proceed subject to coastal state approval pursuant to the provisions of UNCLOS relating to marine scientific research, and there is no mandatory regulation under the ATS. The possibility that a coastal state may seek to realise rights on the ECS in relation to genetic resources may complicate collective ATS approaches and pose wider geopolitical challenges. In the longer term, the fact that some Antarctic states are presently seeking to secure rights that are essentially about ensuring their preclusive access to resources may have significant implications for strategic interests in the greater Antarctic region.

show abstract

Issues and Strategies for Outer Continental Shelf Claims

Abstract: Th e Commission on the

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

The Strategic View: South China Sea conflict based on the view of nationals from different countries

The Strategic View: South China Sea conflict based on the view of nationals from different countries

Comparing the robustness of Arctic and Antarctic governance through the continental shelf submission process

The extended continental shelves of sub-Antarctic Islands: implications for Antarctic governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About